Friday, August 01, 2014

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

You've got the arrow of causation wrong here, buddy. The reason it's really hard to get Americans to sign up for intervention in Iraq is because we've been bogged down in that meaningless quagmire for 10+ years now.

Given that I've expressed my support for the Israeli position in its struggle against Hamas, that comment only reinforces your self-portrait of derangement.

I have to admit I find this a little confusing myself.

I'll stick up for Andy here too: I haven't gotten any sort of anti-semitic vibe from him. Granted I've only been following the Israel-Palestine discussion here for a day or so now and I haven't usually followed it in the past, but his few comments over the past day seem reasonable and I can't think of him saying other stuff in the past that would qualify.

I've been pretty solidly supportive of Israel as the "good guy" in this conflict but they are not without blame and it is worth noting that even in WWII, the military:civilian casualties of war were over 4:1 in both Germany and Japan.

there is no "military" in gaza. there are people who are killed with rocket launchers in their hands, and then everyone else who dies is a civilian.

there is no "military" in gaza. there are people who are killed with rocket launchers in their hands, and then everyone else who dies is a civilian.

Well, I dunno about that. If you had a rocket launcher in your hands three days ago, and you died without one in your hands today, it's hard for me to call you a civilian. (I'm not trying to make a pedantic point at all, just that you can be part of the military conflict without shooting every day or every week.)

The double standard Israel is held to likely is anti-Semitic, and many of the people (though not all) of the people perpetuating that double standard are anti-Semites.

Well, I dunno about that. If you had a rocket launcher in your hands three days ago, and you died without one in your hands today, it's hard for me to call you a civilian. (I'm not trying to make a pedantic point at all, just that you can be part of the military conflict without shooting every day or every week.)

Saying that Israel is not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties = antisemitism.

Good to know.

What a ####### toxic discussion.

I didn't say that.

There is an anti-semitic canard out there that Israel is "committing genocide against the Palestinians". Anti-semites and Islamists are trying to paint Israel as later-day Nazis.

To suggest or imply that Israel is intentionally killing Palestinian civilians, feeds this nonsense. Since there is no evidence they are intentionally killing civilians, we should avoid feeding the nonsense.

I'll stick up for Andy here too: I haven't gotten any sort of anti-semitic vibe from him. Granted I've only been following the Israel-Palestine discussion here for a day or so now and I haven't usually followed it in the past, but his few comments over the past day seem reasonable and I can't think of him saying other stuff in the past that would qualify.

That not an insult. I made no negative references towards any person. I've been insulted as much as anyone here (besides Ray - don't know how he stands it) and I am very careful not to insult people.

I suggested some of their comments were unfortunate, b/c they appear to feed narratives being driven by anti-semites.

I have stated, and will state again, I do not believe any of the posters here are anti-semites. I have defended every poster here who has been accused of anti-semitism, b/c I believe there is not evidence of that.

But, you can't have a debate without criticizing peoples' ideas and statements.

There have been plenty of implications that the Israelis are deliberately causing civilian casualties. Your comment about the ratio of civilian dead was unfortunate.

You are confusing paranoid readings with "unfortunate" writings. The fact that some folks read my response to YOUR question about civilian/combatant statistics in Gaza as suggesting "it would be better if more innocent Jews died" is an indictment of their paranoia, not me using the "language of antisemitism."

So you didn't call anyone an antisemite, you just said that citing a civilian death ratio was using antisemitic language?

Suuuuuuuper weak.

Actually, the "using the language of racists/racist" dichotomy is regularly trotted out in these conversations. Andy is the foremost expert therein.

And the question remains -- With all the civilian casualties in the world, why the obsession with the Gazans'? I mean, yeah, if our world was one in which civilian casualties in conflicts were routinely decried by one and all -- including in situations where one side isn't white people -- then the obsession would make sense and be noble. But that, of course, isn't our world. Far from it.

And the question remains -- With all the civilian casualties in the world, why the obsession with the Gazans'? I mean, yeah, if our world was one in which civilian casualties in conflicts were routinely decried by one and all -- including in situations where one side isn't white people -- then the obsession would make sense and be noble. But that, of course, isn't our world. Far from it.

Because there is only one first world country who is engaged in a conflict where they routinely kill civilians.

And the question remains -- With all the civilian casualties in the world, why the obsession with the Gazans'?

Answered over and over again. Gazans are in conflict with Israel. Israel is incredibly important and present in American life. A conflict involving Israel gets more attention than a conflict involving Ethiopia or Iraq. What about this makes no sense to you?

And the question remains -- With all the civilian casualties in the world, why the obsession with the Gazans'?

Well I am hardly obsessed, but to you expressing concern is obsession if it is a "Modern Liberal" doing the expression. Moving past that though for a couple reasons.

Mostly I am passionate on the issue of the Mideast because it is such a long term mess I think it requires a more out of the box approach. ISIS is a problem, basically they are evil barbarians, but the solution is fairly straightforward - it is applying the solution within geopolitical constraints that is tricky and I think the various powers that be are going to do that as best they are able.

In the Mideast though they are stuck in box, where the 'best solution' (the local maxima in topological terms) only reinforces the problem long term. Doing what they are doing will never work, though it is very understandable why both sides are doing what they are. In their situation letting things play out only means more of the same. It is a stable situation, though the stability is unending death and destruction on both sides. Additionally there are occasional glimmers of hope on both sides, and of course I have hopes that the democratically elected nation full of many people I deeply respect will find a way to do the extremely difficult and break out of the cycle of violence. Obviously I have no such hope with the ISIS morons. They need to be stopped, but without setting up a self reinforcing cycle of violence.

So it makes sense to speak up passionately for a change in status quo regarding Israel/Palestine and focus on that.

EDIT: Hey look, three different answers to the same question and I agree to all three. Cokes for everyone!

The US provides $3billion a year to Israel (more than triple the amount for Pakistan, mentioned above.) People in the US have for various reasons lots of interest in Israel. The situation there is relatively easy to cover since things happen close by airports and broadcasting areas. (Israel's general openness, despite the existence of the censor, to western press is part of this.)

When things are great in Israel, there's a lot of coverage. Regular elections are covered well here. Lots more people can name Benjamin Netanyahu than can name most other foreign leaders. Meir and Peres and others are all well known in the US.

That's the field in which popular responses happen. You can dislike those responses, but to pretend that no one cares about Israel except when Gaza comes up is false. And to be surprised that a place people know a lot about and pay a lot of attention to then gets a lot of coverage when something violent happens is foolishness.

The technical question of what Israel should do in these moments is interesting but I don't have the answer. I think they are aiming to do a lot to minimize casualties. I think they obviously could do more. Drawing the line there is complicated. And I think you can't judge an army by an outlier action--Sherman doesn't deserve the blame for every single thing that happened on the march across Georgia.

On the big picture, it seems obvious to me that peace is, almost literally, a product of a partner who can police itself. Which means that Israel's only chance for peace is to build up Fatah as far as I can see, and to do everything it can to make Fatah look powerful and appealing. To the degree that Israel policy has veered from that, it deserves blame. Clearly some settlers deliberately don't want peace since it is the absence of peace that creates the openings they need. That's narrowly understandable on individual self-interest but to me no way to direct a country's policy. I can accept tough Israeli actions now if they're framed in a long-term plan for stability that they're going to stick to, since that I think is the bigger picture. Whether Netanyahu has such a plan, or whether the Israeli voters want such a plan, time will tell.

Answered over and over again. Gazans are in conflict with Israel. Israel is incredibly important and present in American life. A conflict involving Israel gets more attention than a conflict involving Ethiopia or Iraq. What about this makes no sense to you?

That there's no reason it should, particularly in such wildly disproportionate dimensions. There's no reason to care more about the Gazan civilians than the civilians ISIS has murdered and threatened. (There's no reason to care less, either.)

Given that I've expressed my support for the Israeli position in its struggle against Hamas, that comment only reinforces your self-portrait of derangement.

I fail to understand the connection between the two (and that's been the point on both sides). Support for Israel does not give you clean hands; you're an anti-semite because you harbor anti-semitic views toward Jews.

Such as what? Or is this one of those deals where you just throw out some inane charge and then duck for cover?

Given that I've expressed my support for the Israeli position in its struggle against Hamas, that comment only reinforces your self-portrait of derangement.

According to you and the other lefties here, you don't get to tell people what they're offended about. Their offense isn't subject to YOUR reasonableness test, and your response here is just an anti-Semitic version of mansplaining; gentilesplaining perhaps. In short, if a Jewish person is offended by your anti-Semitism, you need to own up to that and check your privilege.

Sure, but "brokering peace" is. There's nothing to broker. Until the Palestinians come up with credible leadership, that actually wants a long-term settlement (that doesn't involve driving the Jews into the sea) and can effectively supress the extremists, there's nothing to "broker".

Israeli can't make peace with Fatah, b/c Fatah can't or won't control its own territory.

According to you and the other lefties here, you don't get to tell people what they're offended about. Their offense isn't subject to YOUR reasonableness test, and your response here is just an anti-Semitic version of mansplaining; gentilesplaining perhaps. In short, if a Jewish person is offended by your anti-Semitism, you need to own up to that and check your privilege.

Utter horseshit, coming from Left or Right. Zop's being unreasonable. he should either cite some actual anti-semitic statements, or retract his allegations.

I think Face is mocking ... and what sublime mockery it is. I'm jealous.

It's fun to note the difference between the modern lefties' normal human interactions and give and take with 'zop ... and their bootlicking and their "YOU ALL MUST PAY ATTENTION" immediately upon every visit from Devil/Blue Dress.

And of course, the idea that they would apply their "principle" to 'zop or Nieporent that only a person of a particular race/ethnic group can speak for that race/ethnic group and that their perspective is *automatically* eligible for complete deference and that no one not of that group can even *attempt* to inject their perspective is high order loony tunes.

But seriously, how does all this prattling about "leftist anti-semitism", a factor that's almost wholly irrelevant among American liberals, add anything to the discussion? That's especially true here, given that anti-semitism among BTF's resident "leftists" is purely a figment of someone's ideologically driven imagination.

I'm afraid Andy is seriously out of touch with reality. Liberals of his age may have been backers of Israel, but much has changed. Look at the campuses, look at some of the resolutions passed by liberal groups and jurisdictions, or just look at who's participating in the boycott, disinvestment & sanctions movement. Those aren't folks on the right. Perhaps on this issue Andy needs to lecture his colleagues on the left, rather than those on the right.

It's fun to note the difference between the modern lefties' normal human interactions and give and take with 'zop ... and their bootlicking and their "YOU ALL MUST PAY ATTENTION" immediately upon every visit from Devil/Blue Dress. And of course, the idea that they would apply their "principle" to 'zop or Nieporent that only a person of a particular race/ethnic group can speak for that race/ethnic group and that their perspective is *automatically* eligible for complete deference and that no one not of that group can even *attempt* to inject their perspective is high order loony tunes.

That you think any lefties on this board traffic in anything close to the level of manic hyperbole that you do is delusional.

You and GF go threadmine for the last time any of your favorite lefties called someone else on the board a racist.

That you think any lefties on this board traffic in anything close to the level of manic hyperbole that you do is delusional.

So then there are times when a black person calls a white person "racist," or a white person does so on behalf of a black person when in fact the white person is not a racist? There must be, right? If you won't defer to 'zop's unique perspective and his "offense," why then would you do so for or on behalf of a black person?

So then there are times when a black person calls a white person "racist," or a white person does so on behalf of a black person when in fact the white person is not a racist? There must be, right

Sure, no doubt.

If you won't defer to 'zop's unique perspective and his "offense," why then would you do so for or on behalf of a black person?

Because the idea that is what happens by default is utterly delusional - point it out. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did you find where your favorite Lilith DiaBD said someone here on the board was a racist and we didn't jump up?

So then there are times when a black person calls a white person "racist," or a white person does so on behalf of a black person when in fact the white person is not a racist?

Not to speak for others but in that scenario I'd presume the reaction would be the same as 'zop here, "what did he do/why do you say that?" Which seems like the unanimous response across partisan lines (snapper, Ray, Lassus) with the exception of Andy who fairly understandably as the target of the attack jumped to the conclusion of delusion.

Well, the next time that happens here, I'll be sure to do so, provided I disagree, of course. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did you find where your favorite Lilith DiaBD said someone on the board was a racist and we didn't jump up?

It's not just the name calling; it's the failure to apply the same level of deference to the offense and unique ethnic and existential insight of Jews that you apply to blacks.

If 'zop has experienced Andy as an anti-Semite, or otherwise taken offense to one or more of Andy's remarks, who are we gentiles to argue with him? You should listen to him ... you might "learn something."

Do you think we should stop sending $3 billion a year in military aid, too?

Sure, but "brokering peace" is. There's nothing to broker. Until the Palestinians come up with credible leadership, that actually wants a long-term settlement (that doesn't involve driving the Jews into the sea) and can effectively supress the extremists, there's nothing to "broker".

This is common at the end of lots of wars. The US at the end of the Mexican-American War made deliberate efforts to save the intact Mexican government then to prop up the next one on the grounds that anarchy would be even worse. If you ever want to retreat to your borders, you have to work to build up your opponent, strange as it may seem, cause there's no other path to peace. Or, you can rule them by military force. But then if you make that decision, you can't say they have no government worth dealing with. No government can assert the kind of control and stability you seek while under military supervision by another country. You can't just say we have to maintain an occupation because they have no government worth dealing with; the occupation is one of the things that weakens the government and keeps it from being functional. They may still be a bad government, but if so, it has to be on other grounds than efficacy.

Do you think we should stop sending $3 billion a year in military aid, too?

Probably. Israel is rich now, they don't need our money.

This is common at the end of lots of wars. The US at the end of the Mexican-American War made deliberate efforts to save the intact Mexican government then to prop up the next one on the grounds that anarchy would be even worse. If you ever want to retreat to your borders, you have to work to build up your opponent, strange as it may seem, cause there's no other path to peace. Or, you can rule them by military force. But then if you make that decision, you can't say they have no government worth dealing with. No government can assert the kind of control and stability you seek while under military supervision by another country. You can't just say we have to maintain an occupation because they have no government worth dealing with; the occupation is one of the things that weakens the government and keeps it from being functional. They may still be a bad government, but if so, it has to be on other grounds than efficacy.

And Israel has tried to create a Palestinian Gov't. But, they (Fatah) are useless.

The US at the end of the Mexican-American War made deliberate efforts to save the intact Mexican government then to prop up the next one on the grounds that anarchy would be even worse.

I think you saw this kind of attitude among the brokers at Versailles in 1919 (and the formulation of foreign policy in the 20s). The fear that a destabilized German state would let in the communists was ever-present and was one of the many factors that influenced how Germany was treated.

The level of deference you purport is not accurate, so this comparison is not accurate. That's my full position.

Going back to one of the iconic thread examples, Sam caught on even before I did (November 8, 2012):

So, yeah. Good stuff all around here this morning. Even Old Man Wisconsin is making semi-lucid points. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

Watching GF and SBB try to score points and looking ever more foolish is pretty entertaining. But now I have to go disc golf with my dog. Please continue to say ridiculous stuff so I can be entertained when I get back.

If you won't defer to 'zop's unique perspective and his "offense," why then would you do so for or on behalf of a black person?

Context and specificity. I know that context is anathema to many righties, but is, like, a real thing. And if zop comes up with some specific statements Andy made, Andy will deal with them. All of these other discussions that you are referring to, that you think are giving you this big gotcha, are based on specific things that people said, like, for example, what Dungy said about not drafting Michael Sam. After the statement is out there, then people argue about its relative offensiveness etc. and in Dungy's case, there was a context, given his views on gay marriage. When Devil showed up here, she was talking about the attitude reflected by what people were actually saying on the board and connecting that to her experiences. zop just said that Andy is an anti-Semite and then disappeared. But I assume that zop has something specific in mind and will produce it.

Where you do have a point is with the idea that zop has a unique perspective. If zop's perspective is that anybody who doesn't support Israel right now is an anti-Semite or closeted anti-Semite, well, I can see why, given his demographic background, he would feel that way, although I wouldn't agree with him, any more than I would agree that anyone who opposes AA is a racist or a closeted racist. Some are and some aren't, and racism is not an either/or thing anyway, although you and your buddies sometimes act like it is for rhetorical purposes. It is IMO a continuum, and we are all, also just IMO, on that continuum somewhere. But the context with Israel is different, because of the geopolitics involved, as well as because of other things.

Whoa, I go to meetings for a few hours and this thread immediately goes to hell in a handbasket. I consider Andy a friend so the charge of anti-Semitism leveled against him befuddles me. I haven't experienced even one iota of anti-Semitism from him, either online or in person.

As for the neck stabber, I think his comments cross the line from time-to-time -- for example, when he approvingly quotes Andrew Sullivan's insinuations about "dual loyalty" -- but typically chalk up such talk to trollism, not anti-Semitism.

If 'zop has experienced Andy as an anti-Semite, who are we gentiles to argue with him?Andy quite simply lacks the standing to do so. Any failure to recognize that can only be the result of Gentile Privilege.

It's not a shock to anyone that when this comes up in the other direction, the explanation of why this is the case always accompanies it. Although it's always pointless, because these are explanations which you don't give a shit about, at all.

And as Greg K noted, many people above asked for explanations. Which you also didn't give a shit about.

Your dance is cute, but it's a dance. It's not serious. Dance on. Someone somewhere will find you as heroic as Kevin Bacon.

Given that I've expressed my support for the Israeli position in its struggle against Hamas, that comment only reinforces your self-portrait of derangement.

According to you and the other lefties here, you don't get to tell people what they're offended about. Their offense isn't subject to YOUR reasonableness test, and your response here is just an anti-Semitic version of mansplaining; gentilesplaining perhaps. In short, if a Jewish person is offended by your anti-Semitism, you need to own up to that and check your privilege.

I realize you're trying to parody some sort of position you think I have about something, but it's still incoherent.

-----------------------------------------

Utter horseshit, coming from Left or Right. Zop's being unreasonable. he should either cite some actual anti-semitic statements, or retract his allegations.

I'm not holding my breath.

-----------------------------------------

That you think any lefties on this board traffic in anything close to the level of manic hyperbole that you do is delusional.

So then there are times when a black person calls a white person "racist," or a white person does so on behalf of a black person when in fact the white person is not a racist? There must be, right?

You must be thinking of that guy around here---can't remember his name, but maybe you can think of it---who keeps calling Redskins fans "racists" for using the name of their favorite football team.

-----------------------------------------

But seriously, how does all this prattling about "leftist anti-semitism", a factor that's almost wholly irrelevant among American liberals, add anything to the discussion? That's especially true here, given that anti-semitism among BTF's resident "leftists" is purely a figment of someone's ideologically driven imagination.

I'm afraid Andy is seriously out of touch with reality. Liberals of his age may have been backers of Israel, but much has changed. Look at the campuses, look at some of the resolutions passed by liberal groups and jurisdictions, or just look at who's participating in the boycott, disinvestment & sanctions movement. Those aren't folks on the right. Perhaps on this issue Andy needs to lecture his colleagues on the left, rather than those on the right.

I'll "lecture" any of those people if any of them came on here and started preaching disinvestment or boycotts of Israel. And you might remember I spent a fair amount of time arguing against those who were promoting boycotts of "controversial" commencement speakers.

But seriously, what percentage of academia do those people represent? And what percentage of American liberalism does that wing of academia represent? Do you see the DNC or any state Democratic committees calling for boycotts of Israel? What about any unions, either private or public? What about the NAACP or the ACLU? It's easy to generalize, but the idea that American liberals are "anti-semitic" is absurd. Anti-semitism is a mental disorder closely related to tendencies towards conspiracy theorizing, and it can be found all along the political spectrum; it's not located simply on one end of it.

As for the neck stabber, I think his comments cross the line from time-to-time -- for example, when he approvingly quotes Andrew Sullivan's insinuations about "dual loyalty" -- but typically chalk up such talk to trollism, not anti-Semitism.

He's a bomb thrower, and indiscriminate in where he picks up his bombs. Sometimes he picks them up from an anti-semitic source.

Where you do have a point is with the idea that zop has a unique perspective. If zop's perspective is that anybody who doesn't support Israel right now is an anti-Semite or closeted anti-Semite, well, I can see why, given his demographic background, he would feel that way,

Except that in my case, even backing the current Israeli position WRT Hamas apparently isn't enough to get me off the hook. If I thought 'zop was actually capable of embarrassment, I'd hope he'd been embarrassed by those hallucinations in his head.

--------------------------------------------------

Whoa, I go to meetings for a few hours and this thread immediately goes to hell in a handbasket. I consider Andy a friend so the charge of anti-Semitism leveled against him befuddles me. I haven't experienced even one iota of anti-Semitism from him, either online or in person.

So, yeah. Good stuff all around here this morning. Even Old Man Wisconsin is making semi-lucid points. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

--

Naw. Some people just thought it was nice to get perspective from someone who is not part of BTF's extremely narrow demographic.

It's not a shock to anyone that when this comes up in the other direction, the explanation of why this is the case always accompanies it. These explanations which you don't give a #### about, at all.

I'm sorry that asking you lefties to live up to your own standards and beliefs is SO burdensome, but you guys made this bed and you can lie in it. You and your lot have never accepted "context" or "explanations" as a valid excuse when you're playing this game against right wing "racists" and I see no reason to extend the courtesy here.

And as Greg K noted, many people above asked for explanations. Which you also didn't give a #### about.

This is just more gentile privilege. You're not in any position to DEMAND such things from the offended party; that's blaming the victim. Your hate speech is sickening, have you no shame?

Why don't you guys just provide a template for how to criticize Israel's morally objectionable actions without being labeled an anti-semite? Thanks in advance.

Right, I forgot, it's impossible to criticize Israel for killing civilians without using anti-semitic language.

I he's trotting out the "dual-loyalties" canard, he's engaging in anti-semitism. I don't know the man, so have no idea if he's anti-semitic.

It's totally possible to criticize Israel for causing unnecessary deaths. Pick an action or type of action, they did that resulted in civilian deaths, and argue why it was militarily unnecessary.

If you want to dissect the mortar round that hit the UN shelter, gather some information on why it was fired, under what circumstances. If it wasn't in response to a direct threat to Israeli soldiers (I have no idea of the specifics) you may have a valid point.

Such as what? Or is this one of those deals where you just throw out some inane charge and then duck for cover?

Andy, I'm at "work", which is what jews do to make a living. It's not so easy to post there.

I find you anti-semitic in connection with your general hostility and vaguely conspiratorial bent toward the rich, including lawyers, bankers, hedge fund guys, etc. You're more of a "shadowy Jewish cabal" type than a "horns and drinking the blood of the first born". I don't find you particularly hostile to Israel.

EDIT: I should add that I have complained in the past to Jim directly, and privately, that I believe Andy's posts in the OT politics threads have been anti-semitic. This isn't something I'm just tossing off in the thread to score points - it is a sincerely held belief. FWIW.

And Israel has tried to create a Palestinian Gov't. But, they (Fatah) are useless.

A functional government would have to have control of its borders. Fatah has a lot to answer for, but no government would sustain itself for long if an outside military could cut off access roads that much of its population takes to get to work.

On a purely realist perspective, whether or not Fatah is competent is irrelevant. If you want peace, you have to do everything you can to help them achieve a basic level of competence. Not out of obligation to Palestinians. But out of a recognition that this is the only path to peace.

Fatah has a lot to answer for. And also, at times, Israel has gone out of its way to undermine it. If the goal is peace, that's counterproductive and foolish. If the goal is to sustain the occupation to allow for other gains, then it's quite effective as a strategy.

I find you anti-semitic in connection with your general hostility and vaguely conspiratorial bent toward the rich, including lawyers, bankers, hedge fund guys, etc. You're more of a "shadowy Jewish cabal" type than a "horns and drinking the blood of the first born". I don't find you particularly hostile to Israel.

You must be thinking of that guy around here---can't remember his name, but maybe you can think of it---who keeps calling Redskins fans "racists" for using the name of their favorite football team.

I've never called them racists. I have said they've been knowingly and publicly deploying a racial slur, which is inarguable.

How can anyone who "knowingly" deploys a racial slur be anything other than a racist? I continue to use the team's name rather than "the Washington professional football team", so does that make me a racist? In fact I still sometimes subconsciously refer to the "Bullets" rather than the "Wizards"; does that make me a gun nut?

Of course within the context of a football discussion, "Redskins" has never once been used as a racial slur, but don't let that interrupt your narrative.

It's hilarious that after five minutes of exposure to the same arguments he and his fellow travelers been using against other posters for years, Lassus throws up his hands and stomps out. These are YOUR arguments; if you can't have an adult conversation in the face of them, that speaks volumes about you and the left.

I... did not expect that. I don't know about anyone else, but I think of Jews as a minority in every single one of those professions.

Yeah, I don't see how being hostile to some groups that may have a significant (but still minority) Jewish component makes one anti-semitic.

I share much of Andy's disdain for the behavior of the rich, bankers, lawyers, hedgies etc., in modern society (though not his prescriptions about what to do about it), and seem to be one of the most vociferous defenders of Israel here. Which I guess is somewhat ironic being from the token traditional Catholic on Primer :-)

Lest folks think I'm totally making it up, this exact debate has come up before. More than once. See, e.g.:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_hurricane_irene_thread/P800

Andy makes a vaguely anti-semitic reference with respect to finance. There's always just enough plausible deniability - when I say that the Arabs are Shylocks, how can I be an anti-semite? Then folks point out, Andy, you're a ####### anti-semite. Debate ensues. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The third or fourth time it happens, its no longer an accident. Andy certainly isn't niggardly with his anti-semitic allusions.

There was this choice one: I'm aware that it's debated whether shyster has an anti-semitic connotation, but again, I'm talking a pattern of putting the toes right up to the line:

200. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 10, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4465948)
. . .
When people think negatively of "lawyers", they're generally thinking of a variety of stereotypes: Tax lawyers who use loopholes to help the Romneys of the world avoid taxes; lobbyist lawyers who shape the key wording of new laws so as to rig the game in advance; defense lawyers who use technicalities to get obviously guilty clients off the hook; prosecutors who holler "Just answer yes or no" in an attempt to bully defendants or witnesses; corporate lawyers who use their talents to tip the scales evermore in favor of the 1%; divorce lawyers a la Curb Your Enthusiasm; etc., etc., all under the generic heading of "shyster".

No, they aren't. They are your fevered interpretations of my arguments.

It's possible that you, personally, have not made them. But they've been made plenty of times by your ideological fellow travelers, and you've never voiced the slightest disagreement when they were directed against ideological enemies.

Your lecture on what is considered an adult conversation is noted.

Again, I'm holding you to the standards of your ideology. Your problem here isn't with me.

It was a very poor choice of words, and a better apology from Andy should have been forthcoming. I'd like to think I would have said so, but I seemed to have abandoned that thread prior to all that occurring.

It is in fact not debated. There is no anti-semitic etymology. Here's a good article on the subject.

It is not debated whether there is an anti-semitic etymology. It is, on the other hand, debating whether it carries an anti-semitic connotation, which is almost, if not entirely different. See eg niggardly.

Such as what? Or is this one of those deals where you just throw out some inane charge and then duck for cover?

Andy, I'm at "work", which is what jews do to make a living. It's not so easy to post there.

I find you anti-semitic in connection with your general hostility and vaguely conspiratorial bent toward the rich, including lawyers, bankers, hedge fund guys, etc. You're more of a "shadowy Jewish cabal" type than a "horns and drinking the blood of the first born".

Sounds like you're the one making these conspiratorial connections between those occupations and Jews, not me. Or do you think I slam the Koch Brothers only because I've mistaken them for Jews?

Truth is, I've always thought that conspiracy theories that connect bankers and rich people in general to Jews are little more than the flip side of those "Bolshevism is Jewish" rants that used to be common in the days of Sergei Nilus and Henry Ford. That you'd think I actually believe such blood libels is a sign of your lack of reading comprehension, or perhaps just a symptom of your overall venom directed against your strange conception of what liberals believe.

But yes, I plead guilty to thinking that the wealthy of all creeds use their power to influence the tax laws (and elections) in their favor. I could probably find you plenty of Jews who share this rather common and well-documented belief. Are they also "anti-semitic", or "self-hating Jews"?

I don't find you particularly hostile to Israel.

Well, gee, thanks. That's mighty kosher of you. Or should that be "rather goyish"? Please inform.

EDIT: I should add that I have complained in the past to Jim directly, and privately, that I believe Andy's posts in the OT politics threads have been anti-semitic. This isn't something I'm just tossing off in the thread to score points - it is a sincerely held belief. FWIW.

Again, please with the specifics. That's a serious charge, and one that shouldn't be made lightly against anyone, least of all behind anyone's back.

There was this choice one: I'm aware that it's debated whether shyster has an anti-semitic connotation, but again, I'm talking a pattern of putting the toes right up to the line:

None of the first four or five sources I checked on line (Wiki, Urban Dictionary, Merriam Webster, etc.) make any note of an anti-semitic connotation. It appears to come from a German word for son-of-a-##### or defecation.

Shylock has such a connotation, but is often been used to refer to loan-sharks w/o said connotation.

I don't think using either word is evidence that someone has anti-semitic tendancies.

"I have become less pro-Israel," admits Jonathan Chait in a powerful piece for New York Magazine. But I don't think Chait has become less pro-Israel. I think he's become more pessimistic about Israeli policy. And so have I.

Chait and I used to argue a lot about Israel, in part, I think, because we disagreed about what it meant to be pro-Israel. In his post, Chait gives his definition: "a sympathy for the country's history vis-à-vis its critics, or an ongoing support for its political stance in relation to its international foes." I don't equate support for Israel with support for the current policies of any particular Israeli government, any more than I equate support for America with support for the particular policies of President Bush or President Obama. My definition of being pro-Israel was always more basic, and, admittedly, more subjective: I want to see Israel succeed. I want to see it thrive. And that makes this moment in Israeli history painful to watch.

The two most offensive comments, included the one that spurred me to complain to Jim, are not coming up with the crappy Google search. But I recall a minimum of four instances where I though "whoa, this guy doesn't like jews". That's enough for me - hell, one comment is enough for me. The only other poster who's ever posted something that's raised my eyebrows is Sam, and I generally take his comments entirely in jest.

I find you anti-semitic in connection with your general hostility and vaguely conspiratorial bent toward the rich, including lawyers, bankers, hedge fund guys, etc.

Either you're trolling, which I seriously doubt, or you've let slip the apparent fact that Jews really do control finance, just like the old stereotypes say, which makes me really mad at my Jewish grandfather who never got any further in that arena than, I guess, delivering checks as a mailman.

Or you're not all there, complete with an extreme persecution complex, which I've never gotten any impression of till now.

It is not debated whether there is an anti-semitic etymology. It is, on the other hand, debating whether it carries an anti-semitic connotation, which is almost, if not entirely different. See eg niggardly.

So anytime someone uses shyster to describe a lawyer, they are in fact being anti-semites, despite the term having no origin or meaning relating to Jewish people.

Give me a freaking break.

Straw. More Straw. Still More Straw.

Are you sure, Jason? Apparently if I call out a crooked lawyer, I am equivalent to someone discussing blood libel.

#1792 Cosigned on the weird. Andy's not among my favorite posters (to put it mildly), but I really have a hard time believing that a person could find anti-semitism in Andy's posts. (admittedly, Andy's the poster whose posts I am most likely to simply skim, so maybe I missed something. Don't think so)

And I'll cosign that I don't think Zop is trolling. That he sincerely believes what he's said. Truly eye opening for me.

If I describe a school or neighborhood as having an undesirably "urban" demographic, do i get out of jail free because the etymology of "urban" has nothing to do with race?

If you describe a neighborhood as being undesirably "urban" I would just assume you're an idiot who likes their car too much. If you say that, and then also say that someone is a real Monday, and that some people are just animals and Obama is from Kenya, then yeah, I'll assume it's part and parcel.

Trust me, racists are not shy about letting their true feelings be known.

There was this choice one: I'm aware that it's debated whether shyster has an anti-semitic connotation, but again, I'm talking a pattern of putting the toes right up to the line:

200. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 10, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4465948)
. . .
When people think negatively of "lawyers", they're generally thinking of a variety of stereotypes: Tax lawyers who use loopholes to help the Romneys of the world avoid taxes; lobbyist lawyers who shape the key wording of new laws so as to rig the game in advance; defense lawyers who use technicalities to get obviously guilty clients off the hook; prosecutors who holler "Just answer yes or no" in an attempt to bully defendants or witnesses; corporate lawyers who use their talents to tip the scales evermore in favor of the 1%; divorce lawyers a la Curb Your Enthusiasm; etc., etc., all under the generic heading of "shyster".

That's your basis for calling me an "anti-semite"? Do you really suppose that I think that the category of "shysters" (or "Shylocks") is composed solely or primarily of Jews? Again, it seems to me that you're the one making this sort of an inference, not me.

It's ironic that someone who prides himself on his absence of "political correctness", and who loves to mock liberals' "hypersensitivity", would be so quick to take a paragraph that had no mention whatever of Jews and stretch it into an indictment of "anti-semitism".

Again, the world is full of shysters, the vast majority of them non-Jews. There are Chinese shysters, Guatemalan shysters, Australian shysters, French shysters, Muslim shysters, Christian shysters, Jewish shysters, Buddhist shysters, Norwegian shysters, female shysterettes, liberal shysters, conservative shysters, and You Name It shysters. "Shysters" simply describes a group of scumbags defined by their actions, not by their bloodlines.

Context and specificity. I know that context is anathema to many righties, but is, like, a real thing. And if zop comes up with some specific statements Andy made, Andy will deal with them. All of these other discussions that you are referring to, that you think are giving you this big gotcha, are based on specific things that people said, like, for example, what Dungy said about not drafting Michael Sam. After the statement is out there, then people argue about its relative offensiveness etc. and in Dungy's case, there was a context, given his views on gay marriage.